HPV Self-Sampling in Cervical Screening: A Rapid Review
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
Introduction
Cervical cancer is the fourth largest cause of cancer deaths in women. HPV self-sampling could increase uptake of cervical screening. This rapid review aimed to determine the accuracy, concordance, uptake and acceptability of self-sampling over clinician-collected samples in high income countries.
Method
We followed Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods. Top-up of 4 systematic reviews and meta-analyses was performed. Narrative data synthesis was conducted and meta-analysis where applicable. Databases searched were MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and clinical trial registries. Risk of bias was assessed using AMSTAR 2, QUADAS, the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB), or the Nudelman and Otto, 2020 tool, depending on the study type.
Findings
The review included 39 studies for accuracy, 38 studies for concordance, 37 uptake and 48 studies for acceptability. Self-sampling has similar accuracy as clinician-collected samples when PCR-based assays are used. The overall agreement of self-sampling and clinician-collected samples was 87.1%(95%CI;85.6-88.6) with a kappa value of 0.70(95%CI;0.67-0.73). Mail-to-all strategies had higher uptake with participation differences of 11.3%(95%CI:8.4-14.2) in the intention-to-treat analysis and 7.7%(95%CI:4.7-10.8) in the per protocol analysis. Self-sampling is acceptable to non-attendees (91%(95%CI;85.3-94.6).
Conclusion and Recommendation
Self-sampling shows good performance on the four clinical effectiveness indicators of accuracy, concordance, uptake and acceptability.
